We're going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. We are expecting one more member, but we have a quorum right now with five. Mr. Holloway is expected, which would give us six. Welcome to the March 4th Pinellas County Board of Adjustment and Appeals hearing. We received your cases in advance. We've studied them, and in some cases, we've visited the site. I would remind members to disclose if you did site visits when those cases come up. Please understand we don't bring these cases. We are citizens tasked with weighing the evidence submitted in order to make the most informed decision possible. We have no personal interest or stake in these cases except for the general overall good of the community. The staff has made a recommendation on each case. That recommendation may or may not necessarily reflect the opinion of this board. If you're planning to speak for or against any application, you must be sworn in prior to testify. If you've not been sworn in, do so right now with the clerk at the front of the room. We will proceed as follows. When your case is called by staff, the applicant should come up to this table directly in front of us to this podium. Give us your name and your address. The applicant will then present their case, including any comments from supporters. Comments from supporters should be new information, not just an expression of support or rehashing what has previously been said. But speakers will have three minutes. Opponents will then be given an opportunity to state their objection. And similarly, we ask them to limit to three minutes as well. Subsequent objectors should add new information, not just rehash prior stated objections. The applicant will then return to the podium solely to rebut the comments of any opponents. The applicant may not bring any new information to the board at that time. Finally, we will close the public hearing. The board will discuss the case, make a motion, and vote. And the county attorney will now provide additional information on our procedures. Thank you. Good morning. The matters heard by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals are quasi-judicial in nature. Please note that only competent, substantial, fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the board in deciding the matters before it. Pure speculation or opinion, not based on competent fact, cannot be considered by the board. Lay testimony with fact-based support including, but not limited to, meeting minutes, surveys, engineering reports, et cetera, may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thanks. Mr. Scherterback, you want to call the first case? Yes. Good morning. Our first case is VAR-25-18. This is an after-the-fact variance request. There's two for the property. It's an RA's own property located at 1051 East Lake Drive in East Lake Tarpon. A portion of the request includes modification to variance case number VAR-24-13, which was approved in July 2024. The first variance is to allow for an accessory residential building to remain having a two-foot rear setback from the eastern property line, where a 13-foot setback is required per VAR-24-13, and a side setback of 5.2 feet from the southern property line, where a 6-foot setback is required per VAR-24-13. And the second request is a variance to allow for a pool screen enclosure on top of a 6-foot tall wall to remain having a 0-foot side setback from the northern property line, where 5 feet is required. Staff recommends conditional approval of this request. So the subject property is developed with a single-family home. After those variances were approved in 2024, the applicant then came in to get several additions added to the house, including an attached garage, covered patio, accessory building, pool screen enclosure. Construction is finished, and they are awaiting their final certificate of occupancy. So as part of the 2004 approvals from the Board of Adjustment have to do with the garage, the covered patio, accessory building, the pool screen enclosure, they did have a request on the rear of the property. They are meeting that request as well. So after the Board's approval, they did get building permits for both the addition and for the pool screen enclosure. Those numbers are out in the staff report. That information is in there. In December 2024 was the building permit for the addition, and in April 2025 was the building permit for the pool screen enclosure. They utilized a private provider review, so there was no county review and county building inspections except for zoning and engineering for drainage on the property. When it was time for the drainage inspection, the staff from county engineering went out there and noticed that it looked like the structure was built into the setbacks. We received an as-built that showed, confirmed that information. Staff had got, went back out there, looked, yes, noticed that it was. We contacted the applicant. They were issued building violations, code violations to correct those issues. They came forward with a request for after-the-fact variances, and we reviewed that. And we have criteria that only certain after-the-fact variances can be accepted when there's construction in error. And, you know, I'll go over those as a property owner or contractor has made a mistake in the construction or installation, and it would be economically impractical to correct the mistake at the time it was discovered. We found they met that criteria. The appropriate building permit, zoning clearance, or other permit had been issued. They did obtain permits that were approved. Inspections were performed. Such mistakes could not have been avoided by the application of normal construction or business practices. This one, we couldn't determine if these mistakes were caused by not following normal construction practices. And then, also, did they provide competent substantial evidence to be able to submit to this that construction in error has occurred? And, yes, we find that they have. At the February 2026 DRC meeting, the applicant presented a couple of options for solve the building setback and roof encroachment on the south side of the property. So, this isn't for the screen enclosure. This was for the other, the south side, the building encroachment. They brought in, you know, could they get easements from the neighboring property or acquiring additional property so they could meet the setbacks? So, on February 23rd, 2026, the applicant provided us, and it's in your packet, our recorded deed documents and an updated survey showing that they did acquire additional property on the south and east side, which mitigates the portion of the setback encroachment in request number one. So, with that addition, what was built now meets the 2024 setbacks that were approved by this board. So, staff, again, recommends that approval with conditions. We require that the applicants submit revised plans to correct the permits showing what actually was built. All roof drainage systems shall be designed so the water runoff on the roof and structure is not directed on neighboring properties since it was built, you know, closer to those property lines and that all other setback requirements to be met. Is the applicant here for this case? Ms. Tarrapani, you want to come up? Your name and address, please. Good morning. I'm Cindy Tarrapani. I'm the authorized representative for Mr. and Mrs. Warren. I'm a land use planner of over 45 years. My address is 128 East Tarpon Avenue in Tarpon Springs. I'm happy to be here today. Thank you so much for having us. We are here today in a situation we'd rather not be in. It is an after-the-fact variance, but we do ask for your gracious consideration of the unusual situations regarding it. My client and I thought creatively about possible creative solutions to solve the problem, and what we're presenting to you today is the resolution of two of the three variances, as Mr. Schadebach mentioned. So first, if we could talk about the two that we believe are resolved. This is a picture showing the, looking north at the house, showing the south side. So the area of the variance was this area for the accessory structure, both the south property line and this east property line. And what we've done to resolve that is this is the as-built survey. We've added this blue land from the adjacent property owner. So now the accessory structure, which is this accessory structure, it was built with a five-foot, two-foot setback where six was required. It now meets the six-feet setback. This is on the south property line. The eave of the accessory structure is now completely on the Warren property. And we've added this blue area here. So now the accessory structure and shed meet the 13-foot setback that you approved back in 2024. So we're back in compliance with the variance that was approved in 2024 for two of the three issues. The deed, just for the public record to be sure, the deed was recorded on February 23rd of this year. It's in your packet, so it's not like we're thinking about doing it. We've done it. We actually, Mr. Warren, Mr. and Mrs. Warren now own that property. Also, the Ejoni property owner to the south and the east is the Cypress Run Golf Club, so we don't feel that there will be any impact on them. It's their maintenance area, so we don't feel there will be any impact if those buildings stay where they are. The third variance that there really isn't a creative solution, it would be a very expensive solution to resolve, is the pool cage along this wall. When the house was originally built in 2022, the property owners built this wall along this north property line and the east property line for obvious privacy reasons. It's a block wall with a poured footer and stucco applied to the outside. It's not just a simple fence. So what happened, as best that I can tell, is when the pool cage contractor did submit a permit, he did submit a permit, he did obtain a permit. There's two conflicting pieces of information. One is the site plan that you just saw, the earlier site plan that showed the pool cage being five foot off the north property line, which that's the requirement. But the pool cage contractor submitted his plans that show the pool cage right on the two sides. There's only two sides where the cage goes. This is the north side and the east side right on top of the block wall. So first of all, you had conflicting information there, and the pool cage contractor built it in the wrong place along this north property line. We had previously, in the 2024 variance, obtained a variance to allow the pool cage on that east property line, but I guess I should have thought of it at the time that we should have obtained the same variance, but we did not. Just to give you a sense of how it looks, this is standing looking back east. This is the outside of the block wall. Obviously, what you can see back here, that's the pool cage in the very back of the property. A view on the inside of the property, seeing the pool cage and how it's attached to the block wall on the north property line, and just an interior view of that cage. You can see it really kind of all goes together. It would not only be difficult to do, but it would be economically impractical, we believe. Again, it's a block wall with a poured footer, so it would be somewhat expensive to remove that, pull the block wall in five feet, and reinstall the cage. Not only that, if we did that, now we're going to have this five-foot no-man's land between the block wall and our property line. That just causes all sorts of problems, generally, with the maintenance. Was the block wall permitted originally and the pool cage built on top, or was it done so? The block wall was built with the house in 2022. The block wall needs a fence. Yeah, we allow up to a six-foot fence or wall. Because you just made the comment to remove the block wall would be unreasonably expensive, but the block wall is not out of compliance. You're correct. But to put the, to reinstall the pool cage so that we have a pool cage, we'd have to pull that block wall on the north wall in five feet if the variance is not appropriate. If you wanted to put the cage on top of the block wall, you could still build the pool cage inside of the property. I guess you theoretically could, but it just doesn't go with the entire, the rest of the site and how it's attached on the, on the east side. I mean, it's, you're right, it is, it is possible. What, what is, the property on the opposite side of that wall, is, is, is that part of the golf course also? It's behind there. So here's the, this is the property, here's the pool cage north edge, here's the pool cage east edge. This is one property owner. All of this, this white line from here down, this is the golf course. Okay. This is the second property owner. This edge from the north property line to the closest neighbor, the house is about 45 feet. I don't think that that property owner would distinguish the difference between a block wall at five feet or right on the property line. So, so the only adjacent property owner to this north, to this edge here that we're talking about would be this property owner. Okay. See, the pool cage installation is, was not part of the private provider inspection problem, was it? Yes, both of these permits were private provider. Okay. Just real quickly, in summary, Mr. Soderbach has stated it, but I just wanted to reiterate for the record. We believe that the application does meet your criteria for after the fact variances. A mistake was clearly made during construction. As a result of the conflicting documents in the permit package, it would be an expensive proposition to resolve that by removing the block wall and pulling it in. The code requires that a building permit must be issued. A building permit was issued for the work. The LDC requires the applicant to demonstrate the mistake could not have been avoided during construction. As we said, the pool cage contractor believed he was putting it where it was supposed to go, so I'm not sure how he would have resolved it. And finally, the code requires competent, substantial evidence before you today, and the package that we've submitted, along with my testimony as an expert in planning, we believe, resolves that issue as well. I'd like to stop, and I'm certainly happy to answer your questions. Are there any objectors in the audience for this case? No objectors. We got one. Oh, I'm sorry. One back there. I'm sorry. I missed you. Would you like to come up and express your concerns before you speak? Ms. Tarrapani, did you have any other speakers that wanted to speak on behalf of, in favor of this case? No, sir. No other speakers in favor. I would like, depending on her comments, I might have to make some. You have the rebuttal option, yeah. Yes, ma'am. Your name and address, please. Beverly Downing at 1131 East Lake Drive. Can you stand in the middle of the table? The two microphones will pick you up, good. Beverly Downing, 1131 East Lake Drive. There is one house between their property and mine, and our family has been in that property since the 80s. And we've seen many improvements. We always like to see the neighborhood being nice. This particular property seems to be able to do things that nobody else in the neighborhood could do anyway because of the amount of property required to start before you even build the house. Usually it's two acres. And, of course, this is much, much smaller. But, anyway, seeing how some of these building construction ways have been done, it gives the rest of us ideas about how we don't have to follow what was originally there. We can almost put a subdivision in my area compared to the amount of space it's taken for that house. Not that I want that. I love the space. And I don't understand it's an ongoing rezoning variance, just ongoing, just becoming almost as a courier. Anyway, I like seeing that area stay as pristine as it has been. I think we're an exception in that area to a lot of areas in Pinellas County. And all of you and your boards, the county has put together and put a great deal of thought and reasoning for zonings. And if they're not followed, it just doesn't seem to go with everything else. And I would like to see that. And all these setbacks seem to be, everything seems to be an exception to what the rules really are. But, therefore, those are the reasons I feel that you all follow those rules and regulations. And I think they're there for good reasons, not just kind of out of nowhere. And it's also, I think, for the community as well as the personal applicant. And, therefore, I hope you all make the right decision to keep this area in compliance with what the rules and regulations and guidelines that you all have set in place. And all of that is for a very good reason. And I like seeing that stay that way. Thank you. Otherwise, if it doesn't, it gives me ideas about my changes I could make. Thank you. So the just comment in that regard, this is not unique in comments that we've received in the past. The same county government that chose in its wisdom to establish the ordinances that we have also chose to establish this board for the purpose of being able to make adjustments to those same ordinances as necessary when we deem it just and appropriate. So if we were to have a total strict interpretation all the time of the code, then this board would not be necessary. It's just my comment in that regard. Ms. Tarrapani, did you want to come back? Thank you so much. Again, Cindy Tarrapani for the applicant. Just very briefly, she is correct that the area is RA. It's a two-acre minimum. This lot is a nonconforming lot of record. It's been this size since 1984. It's not created by the Warrens. In fact, they're like the, I believe they're the fourth owner since 1984. The county staff has agreed it's a nonconforming lot of record. Obviously, that presented some problems during construction. That's why we came to you last year with the setback variances. That doesn't excuse, I'm not saying that that excuses the after the fact we're here today, but we did need some variances to build what anyone else in the neighborhood would want to have as a nice pool and patio area, and that's why we came to you last year. So clearly, I think you all know this, that just because someone gets a variance on one property doesn't mean that everybody gets a variance. It doesn't mean that everyone gets a pass. We didn't get a pass. We're here today. We're here with our hat in our hand saying we made a mistake. We'd like for your consideration. We think the reasons are justified, and we think it would be pretty economically impractical to move that wall in, that block wall in. So, again, I'm happy to answer your questions, and I do appreciate your time today. Thank you. For clarification's sake, there were three specific violations of the code here, two of which have been corrected by property acquisition. Is that correct? Or have been mitigated? Yes, the Southern one, by acquiring the property, they've mitigated the encroachment of the roof overhang, and they've also mitigated to what the setbacks were approved in 2024. The reason it still comes to you today is because those setbacks were based on a different property line than now since they've acquired this property, so it still had to come to the board for consideration. And the unresolved one is the pool cage? Correct. Okay. Just trying to make it clear for everybody what we're dealing with here. I just had a question. Just because it's my ignorance, I think. I never knew that somebody could do, like, a private inspector versus the county. I just wondered about that. I was aware that there were private inspectors for inspecting the permit as the construction went along. There's also a private provider. I mean, there's a private inspector for the design, and then there's also a private provider for the inspections, and I didn't realize that the county used that either until this case. State law does permit the use of private providers for both review as well as inspection, but there are still certain rights such as zoning and engineering that are held by the municipalities and counties. Thank you. Any other questions I can answer? Thank you again for your time. Mr. Trapani. Yes, sir. So the pool cage contractor, when they went through and they submitted this, they submitted the drawings to zoning. They submitted for a permit, as my understanding, since they were using a private provider for the design and the inspections, zoning, I don't, I mean, he really ought to have the county staff. Private provider does not inspect zoning. Correct. That's what my understanding is, right. It went to the private provider. Private provider, they provided to the county their package of review. Staff at the county only looks at it for if engineering needs to look at it and for zoning. Zoning did look at it. Zoning on the site plan that's attached as part of that permit package for stamped off the correct setbacks, which is five feet on the site plan. The building plans did not have that. The one, as Ms. Trapani showed, that building plan. So it was drawn correctly. It was built incorrectly. It was built incorrectly. Right. So this is, so this lies squarely on the, the screen, screen contractor. Yeah. I don't want to, I mean, come on an attorney, but that is the person that built it incorrectly. Zoning said you can build it within five feet or up to five feet, and the screen contractor took it upon himself to say that, that he set it on top of the wall. Correct. That's what happened. You know, as a convenience on top of the wall, but, you know, like, I had a house in Seminole, and it had the same five feet between the fence and the screen pool enclosure because of the setback. Actually, mine was seven. Right. So, I mean, it is, it is standard practice to where the screen does get set on the ground, around the pool deck. Well, as I said, we had obtained a variance to put the screen enclosure on top of the east wall, and I think that's where the confusion came in with the, I mean, I can't speak for him. I'm just surmising after the fact, but that's kind of what I think happened. Thank you so much. Pleasure of the board. I cannot make a motion. I remind you. I was not on the board at this time, but when this originally went through, was the easement to the east on the long portion of the screen where the board accepted the screen being placed on top of that. What was the justifications at that time? So, at the time, again, this property is, we determined it was a lot of record. So, prior, I believe, we dealt with a prior owner or two prior owners that originally requested a variance for, to build a house on the property. The original house that sits there today, that received reduced setbacks because of the size of the property, because of the shape, you know, the unique, those were hardships on that. They could not meet 15-foot setbacks on there. No intrusion was a big issue with the screen enclosure. We look at screen enclosures, especially when they're, because they go above a wall, they're higher, if it's going to be an intrusion on a neighboring property. But to that east side, which is vacant, part of it is the golf course property, which is that maintenance area there, and part of it is the neighbor's backyard on there. No structures there, no visual obstruction coming from that. That's what we saw to allow for that east side on there. Anybody care to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Go ahead. Because of the fact that we do have the after-the-fact variance opportunity, if you want to call it that, I move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff request. Is there a second to that motion? I second. Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second for approval in accordance with staff recommendation. All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. We have a 5-to-1 approval. You have your variance. Thank you very much. We don't have the ability to impose fines, but if we did have the ability to impose fines, there could be some punitive action taken, but that's for the next review of board rules. Sir and Mrs. Warren, are you guys here? Remember, next time, make sure your contractor does a tie-in survey. Start building vertical walls. That will save you a lot of hassle. Our next case is APL-26-01. This is an appeal request. This is an appeal of the denial of a request for an administrative waiver, which is AAW-25-00126, of sidewalk requirements in Section 154-125 of the Pinellas County Land Development Code for the property located at 4017 56th Avenue North in Leilman. And I'm going to turn this over to public works staff, who is going to present this item to you. Just to be clear to the board, this case, the next two cases, which are tied together, we are acting as an appeals board, not as the adjustment board. This case was appealed to staff. It was denied at the staff level, at your board, staff board. And the applicant has the right to come to us as an appeals board. So we sit here today as the local version of the second DCA. Well, good morning, and thank you. My name is Kelly Hammer-Levy. I'm the public works director. I've been with the county for almost 26 years, and I've served in the role as public works director for six. With me, I have Tom Washburn. He is our transportation division director. Tom has over 40 years' experience. He also serves as the county's transportation engineer. And so the waiver criteria that we're here today under falls under these three criteria, special conditions, unnecessary hardship, and detriment to public welfare. So these are the three criteria that staff utilize to review these requests when they come in that apply to the sidewalk waiver. And specifically, we're looking at waivers to the sections of the code related to sidewalks being required along roadways, 15425A, and Section 154198E, with regard to the off-street parking that is currently occupying the right-of-way where the sidewalk would be, requiring that street parking be designed to ensure vehicles leave or enter the public street, traveling in a forward motion with the exception of some residential uses. And then, G, all criteria are to be applied together with sound engineering judgment in order to promote safety. So looking at the location, we're talking about the Florida Dream Center in the heart of Lealman, off of 40th Street in Lealman. In addition to the code, we also take into account the community's desires and feedback as to what they want to see within their community. And in 2019, the Linking Lealman Action Plan was adopted, and we work towards achieving the goals that the Lealman community has for their community. The biggest takeaway from this plan is with regard to sidewalks, closing gaps, creating connectivity, and public safety. That plan, sidewalks, were the number one category of improvements requested by the community. One of the challenges I acknowledged within the community is that Lealman, compared to other parts of the county, have more individuals who are not car-dependent. They utilize pedestrian and bicycles at a higher percentage than other areas of the community. And again, one of the highest opportunity with regard to existing facilities, closing gaps, adding amenities, improving safety, and improving crossings and intersections. And so the overall recommendations out of that plan, again, are to add sidewalks, to create safety benefits, to fill gaps, to connect community assets, and to leverage existing projects. And with regard to existing projects, since 2021, to date, the county has spent about $36.3 million on various projects that include sidewalk improvements along 33rd Way, 64th Avenue North, 33rd Street North, 62nd Avenue North. Raymond H. Neary Community Park that was recently completed connects all the trailway systems within the park to the sidewalk network to the north and south. The 46th Avenue North Roadway improvements, which has an 8-foot-wide multi-purpose trail on the north side, and we closed the sidewalk gaps and improved ADA upgrades and mid-block crossings, which is in construction today. We completed the 42nd Avenue sidewalk improvement projects, again, which added ADA-compliant sidewalk curb ramps and improved the roadway. The 46th Avenue sidewalk improvement project was also completed. And then in progress, we have the Joe's Creek Restoration and Community Trail, which will also connect a trail system to the existing sidewalk network. 54th Avenue, which is also in preliminary engineering, which includes pedestrian bicycle vehicular safety project. And 67th Avenue, which is also in engineering with a focus on safety and multimodal mobility. We also completed the Haynes Road improvements, which included sidewalk and bicycle lanes from 60th Avenue North to U.S. 19. In addition to that, we've completed over $7.4 million in roadway, ADA, and sidewalk crossing improvements over the last several years. So this goes to connecting to the Linkin-Lealman plan that the county is leveraging our existing projects to help invest in the safety benefits, into the sidewalk components, into helping with mobility improvements within the community. And this is all part of the sidewalk network is all part of that. And Tom is now going to go into some of the technical aspects of this request. Good morning. Tom Walshberg, North County Public Works Transportation Division Director. So when we look at the area close to the Dream Center, the Dream Center is shown there with the star down at 40th Street and 56th Avenue. In close proximity, there are three other community centers. So to Kelly's point with the previous slide, connecting community centers is critical. The property two blocks to the north is Lumen Elementary School. And then there's family and cultural centers are the other two areas highlighted. When we look at the existing sidewalk inventory in the vicinity of the Florida Dream Center, what's highlighted in yellow, this is 40th Street. So it goes from 58th Avenue to 56th Avenue on the left slide, down to where the Florida Dream Center, and then the match line is the image on the right. So you can see the Dream Center highlighted in both locations. You can see that we've got a continuous sidewalk on 40th Street along the east side. And then we've got several gaps along the west side of 40th Street. Likewise, on 56th Avenue, to the west there at 43rd, that's one of the cultural centers. So we've got sidewalk along the north side of 56th Avenue for that block. And then we've got sidewalk segments, but no complete connections. So that's where we started with our review. To Kelly's point, we do have planned sidewalk in the area with other development that's coming along. So it's highlighted in orange there. Again, it's the same images that I had on the previous slide. So on the left side to the top there is, you can see the parking lot for Lumen Elementary School at 58th Avenue. The property where you've got the long segment of orange required as the site plan STP, that's the property right in the southwest corner of the intersection of 58th and 40th. So, and you can see in the image that they have existing on-street parking that's being removed. I'll show you the site plan here in a minute. But they have existing on-street parking that we're removing as part of this. They're building sidewalk as part of their project. The property just to the north of the Florida Dream Center is Habitat for Humanity properties. They're building sidewalk along 40th Street, and then the segment along 57th, we did waive that part as part of their application, but they're building a complementary piece just to the south. And again, when these projects are complete, we will have a complete sidewalk segment from along 40th Street on both sides, from 58th down to 54th Avenue, with the exception of that piece for the Florida Dream Center. Again, going back to Lumen Action Plan, another excerpt from the report, what's circled there in yellow is the area. It shows, you know, a need for sidewalks in this area, particularly along 56th Avenue. This is the site plan for the property up at 58th and 40th Street. So, again, you can see what's on the left side there, the demolition plan is removing existing parking that's in the right of way. And then you can see on the right side that the site plan is adding sidewalks. So this is an approved site plan that's close to going to construction. Referring to the Florida Dream Center, so the existing site conditions, they do have, and you can see in the area, they've got parking along both 40th Street and 56th Avenue. It's been there historically, but it's not been permitted, and it is within the county right of way. They do have a variety of uses on the site. They've recently expanded their uses, which is why they've had to come in for the permitting. They do have a large walk-up population. That's by design. They facilitate a lot of community needs in the area, but there are, and I'll show you some field observations that we've got, but they do have a large walk-up population by design. And you can see in the area, there's no safe walking area along the property frontages. And, unfortunately, there's not enough room along the property frontages for both sidewalk and parking. So it's a choice of what's most important. Tom, can you hold on that slide for a second? Yes, sir. If a sidewalk were installed along 40th in front of the center, would parallel parking be permitted on either the building side or the street side of that sidewalk? That I cannot answer. We have not looked at that. We don't know if there's enough room. This waiver request was to allow the existing parking to remain. So the applicant did not present options, and we haven't looked at options. Is parking allowed on 40th at all right now, or is it too narrow to accommodate parking? Parking is typically allowed along county frontages unless we expressly prohibit it. But we typically do not allow this type of parking for commercial sites to allow back in. All right. I'm talking about parallel street parking. Okay. Tom, is behind that, I guess that's to the north maybe, that's a different piece of property where the green is, I'm assuming, like there's a fence or something. Yeah, so that's somebody else's property. That's that habitat property I mentioned. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. This is the proposed site plan that the applicant provided to us. They did a parking study, so they went out and did observations to look at how much parking was required. They submitted this plan that shows that all their parking can be handled on site. And so with that, you know, that would allow and free up the space along the property frontages for the sidewalk that we feel are more important. We've got highlighted there the accessible space. Again, they made reference that they would have to add another entrance into the building. We don't believe that that's true, that that's not a requirement of the ADA. They just have to provide an accessible path from the ADA space into the building frontage, wherever that happens to occur. So to be clear, that plan is the plan that was presented to us at our, what was it, October meeting when this was approved? Is that correct, Michael? Yes, October 1st, 2025. So we relied upon this site plan when we did the approval then. Okay. So as I said, we did do some field observations out there. This was about a week and a half ago. So they had a walk-up event along 40th Street. You can see that they took it upon themselves to block off the parking along 40th Street with cones, again, because of the event. There was a large number of pedestrian and bicycle walk-ups. During the three hours that the event went on, we counted 34 pedestrians, 45 bicyclists. I'll show you some pictures here. There was some vehicular interaction. Even though they've had the parking lot blocked off, there were people that tried to park there. So, again, you can see some of the interaction with the pedestrians, the bicyclists, some of the vehicles. The white vehicle was actually trying to park, and somebody from the Florida Dream Center actually had to remind them that there was no parking there and direct them elsewhere. Again, I mentioned Lumen Elementary School to the north. So this is a school walk route for the school. School bell time is 180 days a year, twice a day. Their school starts at 845 in the morning, ends at 255 in the afternoon. On average, they've got 10 to 15 students that go through this intersection on a daily basis. They come down and either disperse along 56 or continue south along 15. But you can see the pictures there. Students walking in the street along 56th Avenue. And then depending on, I've got some more pictures here. I'm almost done with the presentation. But depending on the day of the week, the Dream Center has a variety of activities. So depending on the day of the week and the time, there are interactions. And so that's what these photos show. So you can see activities. And this is during the arrival and dismissal time. But you can see the variety of the type of pedestrians. You know, you've got people in wheelchairs with accessible needs. You've got bikes pulling trailers. So just a variety of uses. And again, if they're on the property, they're having to walk behind vehicles for the most part, which creates a dangerous conflict situation. So back to, you know, the criteria that we looked at when considering the waiver. Because the applicant demonstrated that the parking can be accommodated on the property, we don't feel that there is a special condition here. Is this a necessary hardship? Again, Tom showed you a current site plan where they also had on-site street parking removed and they were able to accommodate it on the property. This project can also accommodate the parking on the property, so it's not unique. Adding the sidewalk is consistent with the county code and the Linking Millman Action Plan. You saw the potential for conflict between the pedestrians, between the bicyclists, between those with mobility needs. Hardships cannot be self-imposed. They do have a deed with the county and a supporting resolution with regard to the services they provide. But it doesn't speak to the volume of services or the expansion of services as a requirement, nor does it require the right-of-way to provide those services. And we do believe that this would be a detriment to the public welfare. The sidewalk is a great benefit to the community. It's consistent with our code, and it is consistent with the Linking Millman Action Plan and the goals for the community. So in summary, we feel that the denial of the waiver is consistent with the county code sections that we discussed previously. There are no special conditions. As Tom demonstrated, the parking is blocked off for special events on a routine basis. Parking can be provided on the site. This is not a hardship. Others in the area recently have removed their on-street parking, and this is not unusual. The lack of sidewalk is detrimental to the community, the patrons of the Dream Center. Their recent report that came to you before for the expansion of their uses indicated that the walk-in services, they expected 70 percent to come on foot to be pedestrians. So the lack of sidewalks along the property frontage would prevent the creation of a continuous sidewalk route. And I think the part that hits home, at least for me the most, is it's not only for now, but it's for the future. This is almost a permanent decision. You know, what happens today is the future for this property. It would create a disconnect on 40th, and it would create an incomplete connectivity along 56th, which allows people to move towards the Dream Center and towards 40th to head towards Lealman Elementary. So we feel that upholding the denial of the waiver, again, supports that is supported by the code, it's supported by the community goals, and the recommendations outlined in the Linkin-Lealman Action Plan. Would the applicant like to come up and state your case? Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Board, Katie Cole with the law firm of Hillward-Henderson, representing the applicant. We have a PowerPoint as well. As a point of order on the agenda, we have two appeals, which includes four requests. Our presentation covers all four, both sidewalks and both right-of-way parking. Would you prefer us to go through that presentation in its entirety? I know, do you all have a second presentation as it relates to right-of-way parking, or we can skip over parking? They're pretty intertwined, is the point. I gather that. Because it was agended as two separate items, we probably need to act on two separate items, but that doesn't mean we can't hear it all together. Is there another presentation for the second? Okay, so your call, whatever you want to do them all. I'll generally do it all together, and then after the county's presentation, as it relates to the parking, I'll revisit points that we need to. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So with me today is John Landon, a public engineer who's been working with the applicant on this project, and the team from the Florida Dream Center as well. So as I previewed, we have actually four asks, two appeals of two sidewalks, 56th and 40th, and two parking. The sidewalk waiver is appeal of denial from the requirement to install a sidewalk along 56th Avenue North frontage, as well as the 40th Avenue frontage. It would force the construction of a sidewalk on 56th that's currently isolated and would dead end into a ditch, actually, next to two single-family homes. Both waivers address the same physical area, hence why we're going to deal with these together. These aren't requests for new special privileges, as was previed by the staff. As you can see on the property, this is an existing condition that has existed for over 50 years since the building was built and operated. The property's use was a civic community facility predating zoning codes. Then it went on to be the fire station and laymen as a private business before it became part of the Dream Center operations. It was sold from the county to the Florida Dream Center for these operations. I think the reason we are here, just to recap from the October approval, we appreciate this is a big ask. We know that the Dream Center is operating very important services. Since October and immediately prior to the October hearing, they have already relocated some of their facilities to reduce the number of vehicle trips and provide. That said, the existing building and the footprint has always faced 40th and the front doors are 40th. And while the site plan provided shows parking in the rear, the internal building, the access to the building, and the ADA access to the building is all located on the front of the building. This shows that access point and shows here where the facility, the internal operational layouts and zones. You can see along 40th Street the two front doors, which are the client-facing areas of. And this is why during those special events on a Saturday morning, the parking's closed so lines can queue there on Saturday. But along 56th Avenue, that is not the case. The ADA entrance would be that entrance labeled Daily Client Food Entrance? Yes. So you would need an ADA-accessible parking space somewhere that does not have any curbs or inclines above the allowed amount to get to that door? Correct. Okay. And just to appreciate our process, this is, and to recap from October, this facility is funded significantly by the county. After the storms, there was some physical damage. The Florida Dream Center received significant amounts of ARPA funding from the county to repair. That said, because of the use, which came in October before you to modify the type 2 use to specifically define what was happening there, the Florida Dream Center has not yet moved forward on those repairs because if the use was not approved and if they can't get a site plan approved, the significant ARPA dollars to reinvest into the physical facility would not align. So they're in a holding pattern right now to spend both the county dollars and its private funding for the necessary repairs until they have a site plan approved. So I just wanted to preview that for you as well. I know that you currently do not parallel park on 40th because you are doing the perpendicular parking facing the building. But if you were unable to do the perpendicular parking facing the building, you could at least get some parking on 40th with parallel street parking, which would also enable a handicap-accessed parking space on the street, from the street. On-street parking would be dictated by the county and whether the county would allow a specific handicapped space to be allocated there would be up to the county. This is the existing condition along 40th. You can see the parking backing up into the building and the access point there. We did reach out to the Sheriff's Department to request. We appreciate that there is a high pedestrian amount and conflicts with vehicles is obviously discouraged. The Sheriff's Department did provide that there were zero accidents in the vicinity over the past 10 years. So we thought that was an important note. Going through the sidewalks, we looked at the special conditions and the detriment to the city. We do feel there are special conditions. This is where I'm flipping through across some of these things. I want to show you a photo here. There are special conditions. You can see here that this is a fuse of the existing conditions here. And you can see that there is area and space for pedestrians to walk in front of the parking spaces there. It's not wide enough to be considered a proper sidewalk, but there is parking spaces there. You can see the green area to the north is where the Habitat project isn't being constructed, and there will be a sidewalk there. There are also sidewalks from the elementary school directly down 40th Street all the way to 56th Avenue. So on the other side of the street, there are sidewalks. Your photograph conveniently has the car well behind the wheel stop. I don't think that was intentional. These were Google pictures. If the wheels of the car were all the way up to that wheel stop, there wouldn't be a lot of parking, walking space left. Correct. Correct. However, I think Mr. Landon can speak to the fact of whether that parking could be moved out to allow a sidewalk there as opposed to a sidewalk along the street. So with that, John, would you want to? Thank you. John Landon, 31622, U.S. 19 North, Palm Harbor, civil engineer, probably over 50 years experience, losing count. On this parking picture, we could probably expand that area slightly with some compact spaces and move the parking spaces back closer to the edge of the right-of-way. In essence, we've had sidewalks there the entire time. It's just we haven't had safe sidewalks because nobody wants, you know, to go behind a car. But obviously they're using that to get to their car. Can it be fixed? Possibly. We haven't looked at it in detail. Can you talk about the site plan that they reviewed and the parking in the back and why it supports that? We didn't come up with the parking layout in the back. We were told to see how many spaces could we get in there geometrically because the county always wanted to wipe out parking on the right-of-ways. So we showed that, sure enough, you could do it. We haven't run it through site plan yet. I'm sure they can come up with something. And we haven't, I think you mentioned earlier, looked at the ADA statistics in detail. We haven't got any survey data. We'll try to make that work, but we're not sure we can in the back. Certainly that's not a great place for an ADA space in the back in a fenced-in area when all the traffic is entering from the front. So we're trying to make the front work. Wiping out 14 spaces, or not wiping them out, displacing all the activities in the back is a major impact. And we have representatives today from the Dream Center that can speak to that if you can. So I think with respect to this specifically to the sidewalk, you know, as the staff presentation indicated, there are not consistent sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. There's also right-of-way parking throughout the neighborhood in a variety of places. There is a connected sidewalk on 40th Avenue across the street from the Dream Center. Requiring the installation of sidewalk on 40th eliminates that parking, which eliminates direct access from a parking standpoint to the front of the building. On 56th Avenue, there is – I'm just looking to see if we have the aerial. Yeah. On 56th Avenue, there is intermittent sidewalks. There are no sidewalks in this block. There are three residential homes, then the Dream Center. There's a stormwater ditch and other physical constraints of installing – that if – even if the Dream Center installed a sidewalk along 56th, there would be – it would dead end basically into a ditch. So not allowing connection any further to the west there. So those are our concerns about the – I mean, the main concern about the installation of a sidewalk connecting is that it would require the removal of all of the on-street parking. So that's why we view these as interconnected requests, the four requests, one on sidewalk, two sidewalk, two right-of-way parking. And we are certainly open to solutions. Operationally, it does create a significant challenge because of the ADA access and the fact that the two pedestrian and vehicular main access points are along 40th. The rear parking, no matter how many parking spaces are done there, the likelihood is those people will exit the parking lot and have to go all the way around the building at that point. There's no door, I mean, or an ADA door. There is a warehouse that would not – it's actually where the pantry and the warehouse is. And did they stop the – I know they were doing training on some kind of big vehicle or something. Is that – that was in that parking lot? Forklift training. The forklift training. Thank you. Yeah, the forklift training, they would desire to continue that. Obviously, if it's a full parking lot, that would be limited. And it would help – it would, you know, limit the ability to do that type of training. Somewhere in our information, it was stated that the Dream Center has been sold. The Dream Center was – and I'll let Greg, do you want to speak about the volunteers of Florida? Yeah, I guess my question is, is the new owner of the Dream Center intending to continue the exact same activities as the Dream Center? Yes. Okay. Volunteers of Florida, who I do believe spoke at the October hearing, and Volunteers of America now is the operator. But the operations would be the same. Yes. So they also want to do forklift training. Yes. Well, they would probably want to do a lot more based on their missions, but at this facility and in this location, yeah. I have a question of Mr. Landon. John, I don't mean to be so focused on the parallel parking. I'm just trying to find some answers for you. If we look at the 40th Street side, and considering the fact that you want to have the ability to have a handicapped entrance and a handicapped parking space, if you did an entry drive perpendicular to 40th, and then that's swept around the front of the building, so you'd have like parallel parking in front of the building, leaving room for a sidewalk along 40th, would it not be possible to get two or three spaces in there, one of which would be a handicapped space to allow for the handicapped entrance? I think we could get the two or three. The handicap's a little tougher because of the ADA requirement. Yeah. I'm not sure that would fit without looking at it closer. Do we know what the property setback is from the building to the property line? No. I've looked through a couple of drawings and I haven't found anything that substantial. It's page 11. It's pretty close. This picture here, it looks like 10 feet or so to the property line on 40th. It's like half a car. I don't know where that property line actually extends. Well, they're showing a property line on this unnumbered page, Exhibit A. Exhibit A. In the picture on Exhibit A, there is a property line shown, and it looks to me it'd be about half a car length from the building. That's right. On the picture on the screen, you can see barely, and it's on page 11 of your packet, you can see the blue line. Okay, so significantly less than 12 feet plus a five-foot aisle way. Correct. Which is required for ADA. Yes. There would not be even the sidewalk on the property. You know, the sidewalk would be in the county right-of-way as well as any other parking. Right. And I think that's, you know, unfortunately, as part of this review process, there was not a negotiation or a discussion with staff about options. Right. But we would certainly appreciate the opportunity to have some flexibility. I don't think anybody objects or disagrees that sidewalks and safe parking is important. They certainly do. So the Dream Center wants to provide safe access to its visitors and the neighborhood to get in. The best way to do it when you have the historic front of the building and required accesses on the front is what's creating a difficult situation to eliminate all parking in this area. And again, I know we're on the sidewalk waiver, but if you deny the sidewalk waiver appeal and sidewalks have to be installed, that eliminates all parking. Right. So that's why I'm speaking to both of them. Right. It appears that there's, it looks to me like maybe eight perpendicular parking spaces on the front. I can't tell without looking at it, but that's probably close. And my guess is you could probably get at least five, maybe six street parking, parallel street parking spaces out on 40th. So I don't, it's, you know, it's not a huge, huge loss. The other option I looked at is, you know, granted we have very little pedestrian space in front of the cars right now. You can do it, but it certainly doesn't meet code. I'm thinking maybe we could put in something like a three foot sidewalk and give you a sidewalk easement and move the cars back to the edge of the right of way. Now, big trucks aren't going to work. There might have to be handicapped spots, but it would keep things going. Yeah. Providing some handicapped access to the front is extremely important. Yes. Okay. Thank you. County staff on the text element, is there another presentation? Do we want to take up this item complete first or? What's that? Do we want to take action on? Did you want to, did we need to take, do we need to take action on this item first? Or just, it'll have to be two votes. We can hear the other presentation. We want to hear everything all at once. That's okay. I think it kind of all ties together. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, let's, let's hear it all. Okay. I'll fast forward through this. A lot of the slides are the same. So, this was the presentation for the parking waiver. Same waiver criteria. County code sections are slightly different. This, this speaks directly to the off-street parking. And again, the, the key point here is that we, to the extent possible, we minimize vehicles backing out into the, to the public right-of-way. Location map. Elements of the Linking Room and Action Plan. This was the parking analysis. And this is what we did not include in the previous. This, this was the study that was provided by Mr. Landon, sign and sealed back in July of last year. Again, you can see what we've got highlighted there. Center would like to expand their granted uses as well as resolve outstanding code enforcement issues. So, that's how this case became. They've got code enforcement issues that they're trying to resolve. One of the main issues is the current practice of parking within the public right-of-way. Again, we understand that the parking has existed for quite some time. I'll reiterate that it's not been permitted by the county. We don't historically permit that. As part of these waiver requests, they didn't present other options. So, we didn't look at other options at that time. So, really, our focus is what the waiver request was and what our disposition was. In our opinion, the sidewalk should overrule. And that should be the deciding factor. That's the most important. That's the most important for the Lealman community. It's been demonstrated through our actions with our CIP projects. It's been demonstrated through the efforts that we're making with other site developments. And it's been demonstrated in the work that they've done to create their linking action plan. And if you have any specific questions, I think that was most of the presentation and the photos were essentially the same. Any questions from the board? I think Kelly wants to say something. I'm sorry. Thanks. You know, this was more just adding the one element of, you know, the current on-street parking and the way it is sitting in the right-of-way. Again, it's supposed to be moving in a forward motion so that it's safer for the people. And by eliminating the parking the way it is today, not only does it allow for the sidewalk connectivity, but it mitigates the conflicts between the cars and the people, improving the safety. And you've seen it in the pictures. I mean, that was one day we just happened to go out there and say, hey, what's going on today? But it's every day for this community. And it's something that we really want to address for them one way or the other. And, again, when I look at these things as the public works director, looking at the right-of-way, trying to manage the right-of-way for all users, my utmost goal is public safety and allowing people to get where they need to go, when they need to go, very safely. And so I do don't want to in any way come across as I do not care about the services. They are wonderful services at the Dream Center. I've been out there myself at community events. I'm very cognizant of the resource that this provides the community as well as the Asian Millman Community Center and all of the activities that we have there with the parks and with our CRA advisory community group that helps drive change in this community. So I don't want to take anything away from that. But when I'm looking at the right-of-way, my goal is to make sound decisions that promotes public safety and meets the community goals of connectivity and being able to get where they need to go in a safe manner. Thank you for that. Thank you. Council, question. Do we take citizen input on an appeals case? You can take public comment. And then I would separate it by matter. Okay. Are there people here who want to speak for or against this case? Which? For? Against? Okay. Then let's hear the opponent's comments. And then we'll allow the applicant to rebut that. Come on forward. You're going to speak against? No. No, but I was talking to Ms. Levy. In light of your discussion specifically about the ADA, unfortunately, as part of this process, there's not a lot of conversation that can occur with staff from the time you submit an app. As you can appreciate when you're requesting a waiver, you don't submit six different plans and say, pick one and let's talk about it. But Ms. Levy has committed that they're willing to look at the ADA options along 40th or 56th to try to resolve that issue as it relates to operational. So if that's the case and we can have those meetings with staff, if procedurally we could continue this hearing as preserving the rights, have that conversation, and come back with a more refined request, we would be happy to do that. Well, don't you always have that opportunity to go back to staff? I mean, if this appeal were denied, can't the applicants still come in with another solution? I think it's just the timing. A 30-day delay here would get us that conversation much more quickly than the 100-day application and eventual denial without conversation that a waiver request may result in. We go back to the original case from October 2025, TY2-2505. In there, one of the conditions was that the applicant may seek administrative waivers for these items, parking and sidewalk. It says if they're denied, though, then these conditions apply that were conditions that all parking and loading to be provided on-site and designated spaces, and then sidewalk installed along both frontages and removal of all marked spaces in the adjacent right-of-way. Okay. So there is a condition from your previous approval that's tied to these waivers. So this would have to be, if this was denied, then they would have to go through the, they would have to provide a solution. They would have to be responsible for meeting these conditions as part of your previous approval of the Type 2 use case. I think the staff's position would be that we would not have that opportunity that you had just suggested. So based on this waiver. You can always reapply. Isn't it a six-month waiting period? Well, the waiver would not. Do we have the ability to do a continuance? Is that an option? Is that an option, or do we have to expressly approve or to die? They can continue an appeal case, yes. It's within the board's discretion whether you want to affirm, deny the recommendation, or continue. It sounds like we could get it resolved in a quicker manner. It continued as 30 days or whatever, possibly. If we gave them time to work it out. Okay. Are you asking for a 30-day continuance on both cases? Yes. Okay. Is there a... I'll move for a continuance on both matters. Second. All right. We have a motion for continuance on appeal case APL 2601 and APL 2602. Can we continue it to a date certain if we've got the next... Do you want to continue it to the April meeting? If you can make this until June, I won't be here, and then Jason will have to deal with it. All right. The, okay, so the April meeting is luckily for you on April Fool's Day. April 1st. April 1st. Mr. Palmson, do we take any comments from anyone else at this point, or we just... We can, certainly, yeah. David Lee, I'm a resident in the community redevelopment area, and I'll say my comments for whatever they come up with. But first, I would just ask that whatever process takes place, that some communication occurs with the community, because, you know, we just found out about this a couple days ago. That's why I emailed you late last night with comments. I apologize for that. Yeah. And I mean, the bigger picture here, they told you on the original approval that they straight up told you they had plenty of off-site parking, and they could do it. Now they're saying a different thing, and now it sounds like we're going to come back for a third time saying that, oh, we can do this. So, which is it? And the other thing she's not telling you is that there's plenty of room for ADA parking off-site in the back of that building. What happened is they erected structures, they expanded the footprint of the building, and those are unfortunately sitting right where that ADA parking would go. So, what we should really be talking about here today is where's your stormwater pond? It's going to go in this 100% impervious site, which is required because you altered the footprint of the building. So, I just think that the county, the community, and especially this board has been very generous to this applicant in this case, but at some point, we have to come back down to reality. You can't do everything. You've got a broad interpretation, community use, but you can't do every community use. You can't do everyone there. The site has constraints. The laws of physics apply, and the solution, under no circumstances, should involve giving away public land to accommodate this. So, I guess we'll come back. Thank you. I actually enjoy these meetings, so. I don't mind. It's just 9 a.m. That's one of us. That's like. Hello, Jeremy Heath, also property owner near. I think this is my third or fourth hearing where I've come and spoke in front of you guys, also in regards to the habitat property that's going in the area. I'm also a member of the CRA, and I will also save my comments for the continuance, but I will remind everybody yet again that we are only in this position due to Pinellas County. I, in many ways, feel bad for the applicant, but we are only in this position because this property was not put out to bid. We did not follow state statute. The ARPA money that we have discussed in regards to hurricane damage is not completely forthcoming and accurate. The way that that money ended up with the applicant was under somewhat dubious circumstances. We're only here because we did not take staff's alternate proposal in October, and we are only continuing to kick the can down the road. It is inevitable. When you guys grant the waiver, which I've seen how this goes, when you grant the waiver, this is going to be the easiest appeal ever for a judge to look at. It's the easiest appeal. We all know the facts of this case, which is why the applicant is not able to rely on facts. They just lean upon their mission, which is absolutely noble. Nobody is taking away the nobility of the mission. However, rules are here for a reason, and I would like to, I appreciate Kelly's comments about linking Loman. Over 10% of our CRA budget this year is going towards sidewalks, and in fact, the former CEO of the Dream Center and I used to work together on that board to talk about sidewalks and linking Loman. So, thank you very much for your time, and we'll be back in April. Any further comments from the crowd? Okay. We have a motion and a second for continuing. Can we just restate the motion once more for the record, please? Who made that move? So, I moved to continue both matters, APL 2601 and APL 2602, to our April meeting. Which is on April 1. April 1. April 1. Thank you. Okay, that's the motion, and there was a second from Deborah White. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. The case is continued until the April meeting. Did we have minutes? I thought I saw minutes. Yeah. There are minutes. Would anybody like to make a motion for approval of last meeting's minutes? We have a motion for the approval of the minutes. All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The minutes are approved as submitted. Is there any other... I'll second it. So, I just have a procedural question. So, these two cases were denied at staff level. As appealed here, we continued it. The applicant is going to negotiate some modifications with staff, but you're not going to hear the case again? Or is it going to be heard administratively again? Or are the modifications simply an attempt to assuage this board's concerns? You know what I'm saying? Are we dealing with another appeal? Or are we going to continue the same appeal? Or a modification? I mean, you know, it really depends. I mean, we've got to see what they're going to propose and see what's feasible. And then whether or not there's any change in the staff's opinion of what was submitted to us, which was a full waiver of both. So, it's possible, I guess where I'm coming is, it's possible that it won't come back to us if you can resolve it at staff level. Correct. Correct. I mean, the applicant... Let me ask the boss. What do you think, Bobby? The applicant can withdraw here. If a solution is presented, the applicant has the right to withdraw their appeals. Okay. All right. We may or may not see you at April. No further business. This meeting is adjourned.